|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Splice was kind of all over the place to the point where I have no idea what they were trying to say with it. The one thing I know for sure is I really could have done without the rape scene at the end. The borderline incestuous consensual sex scene between a father figure and his daughter figure wasn't great either. Splice is trying to say a lot of things non-exclusively, which is kinda what rules about it. On one level, it's a very straightforward "when man plays God" sci-fi horror movie; on another level it's a Cronenbergian psychosexual thriller; and then finally it's a critique of big pharma. All of these themes flow together rather organically, where the point is precisely to subvert the ostensibly reactionary premise of the first level - that the problem is simply science becoming "blind" in the absence of God - by clarifying that this critique is meaningless without an accompanying economic and political context. It's one thing to say that scientists lack ethics because they, like, don't believe in a higher power or some poo poo. The actual problem is that there is a self-evident higher power, which is ideology. These aren't just some mad scientists working in the desert making giant tarantulas. They are thoroughly a part of the system, and even this next-gen, state-of-the-art company that literally calls itself NERD. Even the apparently gratuitous incest and sexual violence provides nuance to this. Even though Brody and Polley's characters are ostensibly "equally" responsible for their creations - both being highly qualified experts - the chasm between how they come to relate to their creation is inherently unequal. Systematically, there is no equality. This godless science merely reproduces the highly exploitative conditions that were always underlying this superficial progressivism. By the end of the film, Polley is reduced to a brood mare for the anti-Christ. These things are horrific and repulsive but, of course, it's a body horror movie. The spectacle is the substance. The apparent gratuity shocks us out of complacency.
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
To bring it more back to our discussion of 'beast and beauty' narratives, as to why examples of men playing beauties and beasts being portrayed as female are relatively less common... After all, Beauty and Beast fairy tales exist to normalize and romanticize ruling-class patriarchy. There is no paradigmatic opposite of that formula where the beauty is a man. Now, obviously, an enterprising and self-critical artist can very much try to subvert expectations, but at a certain point we need to recognize the central problem here: Beauty and Beast narratives exist because of the fundamental inequality between men and women in a patriarchal society. The paradigmatic opposite of Beauty and the Beast isn't, say, the 1976 British comedy Queen Kong. It's simply the story of the valiant prince slaying the dragon, the sword of truth flying into the black maw of Maleficent's heart. 'Gender-swapping' either of these formulas doesn't implicitly change or undermine their typical ideological function. The cosmetic prejudices against, like, men falling for "unconventionally beautiful" women are symptomatic of the broader political context, where society is absolutely organized around the relative privilege of straight men through the coercion and dominance of women and queer folks. Hell, it's not even a consistently observable prejudice: We already have movies about handsome, desirable male leads falling for "homely" and fat women. Even loving A Star is Born is attempting to do this story with loving Lady GaGa. And as that Namor series beautifully illustrates, the point, when laid bare in its purest form in the context of a comic book power fantasy, is not of any essential progress, but of this affirmation of reactionary values: We get to both identify with the female protege getting sick over Namor seducing a sea monster lady, and we get to praise Namor as this master of sexual conquest. The funny thing is that probably the closest we've come to a gender-swapped beauty and beast movie is Maleficent, and even there the filmmakers inevitably reached the realization that "the true monster is man," you can't just whitewash away the opportunism and exploitation that underscores the beauty/beast paradigm.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Arguably, so is Bella in Twilight. The MSJ posted:Bella did not just join the Cullens, she took over and led them against the aristocracy/patriarchy for her reproductive rights. The Twilight films are shockingly nuanced given they were originally saddled with this knee-jerk interpretation about how, like, they're a Mormon woman's psychotic fantasy about how abuse = love. All of those things turn out to just be caveats of the beauty/beast formula. But then the actual ongoing story is pretty much a meta-narrative representing the history of colonial white feminism. The decision to take the Underworld premise of Vampires vs. Werewolves and turn it into a not even veiled metaphor for colonial whites versus colonized first nations is particularly inspired.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The premise of Vampires vs Werewolves did not originate in Underworld. I didn't say Underworld did it first. But you better believe that that's probably what influenced Twilight, especially the film, most heavily. Like, I'm sure there's probably some video game or board game or other poo poo I shouldn't care about that did a whole thing about monster syndicates having clandestine wars against one another, but if we're talking the purview of Twilight, Underworld is a totally obvious source of inspiration. Other than that, I'm not including just monster mash stuff like House of Frankenstein or low budget Spanish films that are literally just "one kind of monster fights another" with none of the later motifs of basically being mafia/spy agencies and their attendant escalation of themes of class, race, and sexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
I still really like Antz. Such a mean, weird, perverted little movie. But it stars a pederast so I’m perfectly (un)comfortable being alone in that and never recommending anyone see/revisit it. Hell, I’ll actively dissuade them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:Okay, then go see Smallfoot, which heavily features fuckin Common, I mean really what bolder progressive casting choice could a person make exactly Pick posted:I judge this film by the wokeness of its whites only Settle down, Pick. Ghost Leviathan posted:I remember the termite war scene, that was hosed up. Was that a Starship Troopers riff? It is explicitly a reference to Starship Troopers and rules. Wheat Loaf posted:I imagine that was meant to be more visceral than they were able to do at the time When I was a kid it was pretty loving unnerving and easily the only animated film that struck me on that kind of visceral level that wasn't a classic Disney film. Like, Pixar movies could give you the weepies, but I cried at everything, even the Wild Thornberrys special about that ape kids' parents dying or whatever, I was a mush-brain. Antz really just loving weirded me out. I grew up, saw it again, and realized why: It's stars Woody Allen and plays like the Farrelly brothers decided to adapt Fantastic Planet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:I think a great microcosm of the difference between Antz and A Bug's Life is that in A Bug's Life the ant queen is a cute wrinkly old woman voiced by Phyllis Diller while in Antz the ant queen is voiced by Anne Bancroft and is immobilized by her egg sac and constantly giving birth. This is a good catch. Lots of animated films have scatological humor, of course, but Antz is just so uniquely revolting. The protagonist literally has a conversation at one point with a decapitated head. The funny thing is that both it and A Bugs Life in many ways follow the same exact plot structure, have the same exact end message, but as you say, even within this strict formula they diverge in such stark ways. A Bugs Life frames the oppressive antagonists as coming from the outside, Antz is about a military coup. A Bugs Life is about a failed inventor who just wants to prove himself, and who is ostracized specifically for failing to contribute. Antz is about a guy who has no remarkable attributes, who is just some miner who happens to be more neurotic than the rest. The film opens in a loving psychoanalyst office, and the shrink literally tells the protagonist that he's insignificant. Unlike A Bugs Life, nobody is working desperately to stave off some specific threat - they are simply working. A Bugs Life opens above ground, with the Disney-esque, sunny lands that the ants inhabit contrasted with their eventual overshadowing by the ruthless grasshoppers. Antz is preoccupied entirely with the below-ground, with the interior, and with no specific external threat frames these characters as remarkably content to just live in the unremarkable brown earth and darkness. Even the external threat of the termites is strictly understood in terms of protecting this soul-crushing arrangement. In A Bugs Life they have fear of being killed by grasshoppers to keep them in line. In Antz, they have booze. A Bugs Life ends with the camera pulling back to observe this Disney paradise, now unsullied by the dreaded external threat. Antz ends in the camera tilting up from the colony to the skyline of New York City, which obviously matches the ant city from the film's beginning. resurgame40 asks a very important question: Who was this movie made for? But the obvious answer is that the film is not made for anybody. It simply was and remains a unique vision that isn't immediately comparable to anything; that is technically 'appropriate' for kids (so sayeth the studio proxy MPAA), but can not be said to be strictly a 'family movie,' much less 'for adults.' It is simply presented, naked, and without pretense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:This is one of the only thing about Antz I really did like, but beyond the ant queen being associated with birth, that's where the attention to biology ends*. Beyond that it's all the exploration of themes using the backdrop of an ant colony: the use of a fictional story to establish the morals of "it is no crime to be innovative, even if it breaks tradition", "heroism is a pretense until the lie becomes true because heroes are made, not born" and "bullies and parasites cannot be appeased and if you try you're playing their game" in A Bug's Life, vs... vague comparisons to the daily grind of work using an ant colony, an arbitrary conflict between worker ants and soldier ants that gets forgotten, and a protagonist who has no dreams beyond being recognized and who doesn't really change, the perception of him does. The former just feels more focused and reinforced, while the latter just kind of is... and I guess it is memorable for how weird it is, but that doesn't really make it good. Many species of ants absolutely will prioritize a few offspring who remain close to the queen, though. It's adaptive because, in case of some supreme disaster where the queen is killed, there's always at least one female who will take their place. And you don't want just any potentially fertile females taking that mantle, you want the most fertile. Of course, since there's usually more than one of these "heirs apparent," there's often a bit of squabbling - and it's not even unheard of for some enterprising heirs to, surprise surprise, lead military coups against the sitting queen. Ants are cool, obvi. But this also helps us expand on the critique as far as anthropomorphism. Obviously, neither ABL or Antz are about actual ants. Ants are merely a useful analogy for structuring a narrative that is clearly about us. A speculative narrative more about trying to give voices to more biologically and socially correct ants just becomes increasingly more disturbing. We can even think of Cronenberg's brilliant The Fly: Humans have politics, bugs don't. Humans have these entire symbolic structures and senses of philosophical motivation that drives them to make decisions. Even if you're a queen at the top of society, even if we can make this critique that you substantively can't or don't care about the masses over whom you wield undemocratic power, you can at least feel and think that the opposite is true, that you do authentically care about the people, that your power is not simply a display of power, etc. Ants don't have that. They have no delusions, but also no beautiful lies that they tell themselves. They are brutally efficient and automatic. So what we're describing when we're describing a more speculative animated film about animals is not simply, like, ABL or Antz but slightly further - we're talking about Alien, but where the monster speaks English. It's definitely a cool idea, though, and I'm not trying to poo-poo your own speculation. But let's not be too closed off, me thinks, about what we consider "speculation." The symbolic orders of ABL and Antz are automatically speculative, but about people: What systems they are born into, what obstacles they face (both physical and meta-physical), what they can accomplish, and how they can accomplish it. So, with regards to Antz as an example, there is nothing vague about this speculation. There is nothing vague about opening your film with a character going to see a shrink. There is nothing vague about having a villain who believes that the colony has been made weak by 'useless workers,' who once a society oriented more around military authority, and who desires a massive purge of the useless people. There is nothing vague about casting Woody Allen, an icon of the ironic, self-hating cosmopolitan Jew, at the center of this conflict. The conflict of the film is not between the soldiers and the workers. The soldiers and the workers make friends all the time, Z himself is friends with a soldier. The conflict of the film is "the Jewish question." Ghost Leviathan posted:Like I said, the message of A Bug's Life is basically 'When the oppressed are the majority and the oppressors are a minority, all it takes it for the majority to realise their status and they can gently caress up them up bad', so I can't hate it to much. Though I kinda have a soft spot for both. Also the former message...does have a history of being misdirected. Well that's the thing. You were spot on before about how the grasshoppers are characterized more or less like classic film gangsters. So while it's possible to extrapolate some sort of thesis about oppression, like maybe colonialism (?), this is undermined by the fact that the apparent oppressors are not the founders of any colony. The colony is taken for granted already, and the grasshoppers have no invested interest in its perpetuation, they aren't the engineers of it. Like locusts (duh), they just take, take, take until the resources are deprived, and then, supposedly, they move on. Or do they? This gets back to resurgam40's point about the 'vagueness' of the symbolic order, and even their well-founded speculation about anthropomorphism and all the questions it leaves open about the narrative potential of depicting more biologically accurate animals as characters. Do any other colonies exist? Do none of them ever just fight back from the get go, like ants will do, voraciously, without regard for themselves? Did the colony of ABL do this and fail? If so, why did they succeed at the end? Do they require the inspiration of a single "great man" (an inventor and "innovator," no less)? So, of course, if we're talking about vagueness, ABL depends far more on leaving things vague, of treating the symbolic order of the film as being something that is simply spawned out of unknowable emotional forces, but where there is no tenable political or historical foundation, even a hypothetical one. The grasshoppers are not colonists, with an invested interest in perpetuating a particular order, or preserving a colony for as long as possible to maximize its exploitation. They don't attempt to exploit conflicts of interests within the ant colony to achieve a goal. They are simply locusts, forces of directionless evil and 'bullying' who, once you kick them out, then everything will be fine. You're right to be suspect of the ideological compunction of this narrative. ABL is like the propaganda film that the general from Antz would produce if his coup had succeeded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:ABL does also involve the misunderstood/ignored genius from within the masses whose inventions are both a huge economic force multiplier and a keystone in fight against the outside oppressor, with at least the implication that valuing the right and voice of the individual allows those who have new ideas that benefit the majority when necessary to reach their full potential and uplift all. And before that, the ants are more willing to put their trust in unproven foreign ideas (the circus bugs defending them in Seven Samurai/Three Amigos style) than Flick's technology. But then again, it's a confused metaphor at best. (It does take the skills of the outsiders AND the wisdom of the downtrodden to fight the oppressor) Yeah, there's a definite "imagineering" bent to their films that began with ABL and then just totally crystalized with Inside Out. Also, thank you for reminding me to watch Three Amigos again, I love that poo poo irrationally.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Dennis Hopper was definitely an early DreamWorks kind of guy, though
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Btw, Halloween is Grinch Night is shockingly good
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFDKWbg2xjg
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
She moped
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
To be frank, nothing would have actually satisfied me short of a beatified version of Jim Crow played by Antonio Fargas. The last shot of the trailer before the title would be a close up of him staring offscreen in awe, taking off his glasses and saying, "And I thought I'd seen everything."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
So, Smallfoot. I was gonna do a whole effort post but I'm too tired all the time so instead: Cool things I liked: The Yeti society of the film, while initially presented as a parallel to a broadly typecast conservative majority, is revealed to actually be more like the Nation of Islam, as a fundamentally reactionary community whose ideology is itself an organic response to historical oppression. And while the film is explicit in how this model of separatism ultimately only replicates dominant ideology and turns it oppressively inward, its conclusion is bizarrely similar to something like Barack Obama's initial, not so much defense, but his refusal to "disown" Jeremiah Wright. The point being that while it's convenient to write off these insular groups as merely "wackos" or "reverse racists" or whatever, their incendiary rhetoric has to be reckoned with as a conceivably rational response to broader systemic problems; and therefore should also not be "disowned," but actually further radicalized as the basis for building a broader coalition of the aggrieved, represented rather overtly in the film by having the smallfoot allies of the Yeti literally crossing a police line to use themselves as human shields. In a way, one can think of Smallfoot as a better version of Black Panther. Not so cool things I didn't like: Every song in this movie was gratingly mediocre and intruded on the narrative with all the delicacy of an Amtrak train going off the rails. Also, it suffers from the inherently cynical precondition of most modern American animated films: they must all be hyperactive, self-aware, broad comedies. They must all begin with the protagonist literally explaining the setting. The overarching comedic framework overpowers and renders insincere any attempt at drama or tragedy. The high point of the movie is like this climactic 5 minutes where it turns into a kaiju movie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Yeah, Jhonen Vasquez is a really good dude by all appearances, which was half the point of my post- you really wouldn't think the loving Johnny the Homicidal Maniac guy would be one of the best people there. Not only is he that, but a huge proportion of the people behind their much safer shows are staggeringly awful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09nq4RFqiT8&t=51s
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
"Why do so many animated films have great stories?" That's a hell of a premise to just let coast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
This kind of relates back to Smallfoot, with the problem being how its nominally exceptional dealing with ideological concepts is undermined by the fact that the systems that produce it are so systemized and reductive. The fact is that very few people actually find themselves praising the story, that is the narrative, of animated films; in the same way that, as far as storyboarding goes, they also very rarely actually do anything to clarify why the visualization of narrative is well executed. We are reduced to talking about these films in terms of pure concepts, with this implied child somehow being positively influenced by them. Of course, the child is imagined. The adult - the filmmaker, the spectator, the critic - has made them up as an obvious projection of themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Pick posted:This is ok to me because it wears its metaphor so openly and isn't asking for you to figure out "what it's talking about" as part of the challenge. Step one isn't "what's Smallfoot REALLY about?" Smallfoot is like, "here's a movie about religion. now figure out what we're saying about it." That's the thing, though. The crisis of modern American animation isn't that it's lacking in being didactic and straightforward. It's precisely in the thinking that didacticism will somehow resolve this problem of the ability to engage with, as you put it, the "real" meaning of the movie. It's like what Orson Scott Card, a very bad man personally, but an astute critic of allegory in science fiction, would say about metaphor and allegory: The brazenness of a "message" only reveals what you wish to be its value, which is inherently disingenuous. Values are best revealed, and thus engaged with, when authors are simply trying to write about superficial content with which they are interested. The "real" meaning of something is not a "subtext" that exists beneath the surface, and that therefore can be resolved simply by being heavily expository and didactic. The meaning(s), rather, are all these things that exist right at the surface, that are apparent to potentially anyone who is looking. The trend of American animation to being a cinema of socially progressive moral concepts is self-subversive because it is inherently preconditioned to treating the activity of looking as an undesirable checkpoint. So, with Smallfoot as an example, there's the most obvious problem where the didactic meaning of the film - that one should challenge reactionary values while refusing to disown identities that have potentially depended upon those values for very rational reasons - leaves exposed through its unremarkably hyperactive comedic context, a conspicuous affirmation of an inherently reactionary symbolic order that simply isn't coded as "fringe" ideology. So the irony becomes that this nation of the oppressed is criticized more for its rational hostility to symbolic "progress" that is associated with their historical oppressors, than the historical oppressors are criticized for any particular reason besides certain individuals lacking "integrity" or whatever. You see the same problem in Home, where the story of imperialism is resolved with an intergalactic, multicultural dance party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
dirksteadfast posted:I wonder if there was a script kicking around at Disney of “Inside Out, but it’s the internet” and they didn’t feel it was solid enough to hold its own so they slapped on WIR for brand recognition. That's more or less what already happened with Emoji Movie
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Strange Magic and Bee Movie are better by accident than the vast majority of animated features of the last 8 years could be on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
dirksteadfast posted:WIR raises so many questions. The Ralph in the franchise is from a single arcade machine. But that machine was mass-produced. Do all Ralphs from all arcades go through the same emotional turmoil? That calls into question pre-destination. Or maybe all Ralphs behave completely different, but that seems strange because they’re all essentially identical characters raised in identical situations. It seems like such an obvious extension of the internet, too, that it's a window into the "real" world. Ralph spends all his life thinking that his situation is just a uniquely personal and otherwise irrelevant ones - but then eventually he gets old enough to go on the internet and finds out that, "Oh, no, it's all of us who are treated like poo poo, and it's so someone else can have power." But it's critical to remember that this is a central conceit of this emerging subgenre of web 2.0 children's movies, whether it's Emoji Movie or Inside Out or Breaks the Internet, the idea of the internet leading to an end of reality just as the decline of Soviet communism signals the "end of history" and ideological struggle. Structures and systems are taken for granted as being purely the externalization of abstract, remote, emotional forces which are always endemically sutured into the symbolic order of these very structures and systems that are thus teleologically declared "unreal" and thus not relevant to scrutiny. A little girl has a theme park inside her brain.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Ya know, say what you will, All Dogs Go to Heaven is low key a good noir with just some traces of magical realism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
For real though is it just me or is All Dogs Go to Heaven a seriously well-made throwback noir/non sequitor musical complete with, like, hits of Frank Borzage?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
gently caress, man, should I edit a 4:3, high contrast black-and-white version of All Dogs Go to Heaven?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
The Cat Came Back
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
It’s not very good. It’s not as bad as that other chick jones movie about the kid who goes to wonderland except it’s as imagined by an old white guy who constantly condescends to you
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
cross post from genchat: Japanese Animated Film Classics archive selection of the day: Spring Comes to Ponsuke (Ikuo Oishi, 1934) http://animation.filmarchives.jp/en/works/play/91355
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
In general, Chuck Jones' non-short work is really strained. Like, compare anything in The Phantom Tollbooth to The Bear That Wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:no I mean like, the original movie is set in the 1940's? how is a prequel gonna be set in the 1980's? isn't Cruella De Vil from old money? born and raise silver spoon in her mouth? how the hell would she ever be involved with the punk scene? It would be a fictional character with the same name. Semi-related this is also literally something that would have just been a Disney Channel Original Movie or even series, but I guess just constantly making hand-over-fist with their live action remakes is giving them dollar signs in their eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:I dont think you can tragic backstory your way into sympathetic puppy skinning. It'll probably be something more like Malefocent, so it might at least be somewhat funny to deconstruct the film as pure propaganda from a merely more liberalized but just as tyrannical old white lady. Maybe her first foray into incredibly exploitative schemes will in fact be operating a night club.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Daphne & Velma already did a running gag where Velma needs to keep killing her A.I. children for parts, so I think it could work that every ten minutes or say cruella just snaps a puppy's neck and tosses it in a bin. Also, we need a Blondie-esque punk cover of the Ogden Edsl song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4S7gMiImKc
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Sorry, what? In Daphne & Velma, Daphne & Velma from scooby-doo are in a high achievers school who are investigating a mystery in which the top students keep disappearing and then turning up as dumbed down shells of themselves. At one point they discover a locker which is actually a secret passage to where the students are brainwashed, but it's locked so they have to make a temporary incendiary device to melt the lock. Velma has these little, tiny, WALL-E-style robots, which she can apparently repurpose for parts, but not without destroying them. And because they keep getting caught in the act of breaking into the locker, they have to keep doing it over again. In the final gag, Velma's little robot just begs for its life, and Velma covers her eyes preparing to smash it to death with a ball-peen hammer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Speaking of CGI remakes: The BBC just released a trailer for their take on Watership Down: This actually looks pretty neat. It's got a Walking with Dinosaurs vibe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:Again, not to overstate how good the movie is or anything but I remember walking out of the original Raimi Spider-Man and being jazzed because it was the first real post-9/11 blockbuster that tapped into this zeitgeist of New Yorkers working together and being about good triumphing over evil, and I felt a very similar feeling leaving Into the Spider-Verse with how it's ultimately a movie about hope for the future and working together to make things better no matter how unrelenting and bleak the current future looks. Oh, no...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVMOlos4kVg
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:Why is Jafar hot, tho Maybe he'll try to seduce Aladdin. It's a Guy Ritchie movie, it could happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
SardonicTyrant posted:I kinda wish they made Aladin like a bollywood movie. Baz Luhrmann's Aladdin would have been so loving good
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 04:10
|
|